44th

[Lou]

I'm not so much against importing goods as I am EXPORTING jobs.

I, for one, am SICK of having a computer issue and trying to call Microsoft or AOL had getting some guy who's obviously in India but wants me to call him Bob. It's mainly just about frustration and the language barrier than anything else for that part of it. I can barely explain to my own family what's going on when my computer goes wonky, much less trying to explain it to someone who doesn't speak English as a first language.
The second part, after the initial call ticks me off more. When I think of all the call centers that have closed so that we can ship those jobs to India for cheaper. Where making $2 is a giant RAISE for them, but means the loss of a job and health insurance here.
When I graduated high school, there were call centers EVERYWHERE. For credit card companies, Sears, hotels.....just about everything you bought there was a call center around that you could work for. Cushy job, no real need for higher education, benefits, VERY flexible hours since they were open 24 hours a day and ways to work your way up the ladder. They'd even help subsidize for you to go to college.
Since then, these places have all but closed as the companies realized it was cheaper to send those jobs elsewhere.
Now I see my sister-in-law with strange lumps on her lymph nodes but can't get insurance, would LOVE to go to college and is slaving her butt off at the Cracker Barrel trying to work shifts that work opposite of her husband's so that someone can watch her kid. And I think of all those jobs that were open to ME when I was that age that would help her immensely.

I'm not PRO slave or child labor in other countries. But, I don't see how WE can stop that. If we put a tax on those imports, it's not like they're gonna set everyone free to enjoy life. Sadly, it's something those other countries will have to address before we can do a thing about it. In fact, taxing it may well make it worse as they'll have to cut some of those jobs and pay them less as there will be less people to buy the goods.

What I see as MORE important is taxing the companies who are exporting the jobs. They tell Microsoft that if X amount of their sales is in the US then the same percentage of call centers must be here or WHAMMO THEY get hit with a 1000% tax. The same should go for Capital One and all the other companies that are shipping their jobs overseas for no good reason other than saving themselves money.

 

[Superstar]

And the government does pay farmers not to farm certain lands, but this is in part to keep farmers from overusing their lands and depleting the soil. Because when that happens and there is a drought, the topsoil gets blown away ala dust bowl style. This is one reason for that at least.

The Dust Bowl argument is fallacious. Certainly applicable 70 years ago before technological revolutions in farming methods.
Farms are subsidized for several reasons, none of which are pleasant.
1) competition with the already mentioned processed/packaged foods.
2) competition with imported foods.
3) simply because that's the way it has been done since the New Deal days.
4) lower consumption against processed/packaged foods many of which use foreign goods.
5) Wold Bank is certainly a main offending lobbyist for subsidies.

Food is simply put one of the cheapest commodities to produce and to purchase. The argument isn't for Dust Bowl effects but that the supposed price of farmland would decrease. There is also the alternative fuel equation which has lobbyists blocking it. The fact is food is not profitable enough for corporations unless the supply is limited. These are all unfortunately ugly arguments of truth. Fresh produce is priced higher to stimulate the purchase of processed/packaged foods and to supposedly assist third world nations since this is for many their only cash crop (to turn a phrase). Unfortunate, but again not truly our business to assist them. So instead, America (and the world) suffer from restrictions imposed such as higher costs, prevention of developing alternative bio-fuels and full development of existing technologies.

In essence this is true elitist socialism (and veiled processed/packaged food company capitalism) at its nastiest. The championed good of the one over the good of the many. The amusing thing is that by preventing the development of bio-fuels these same third world countries are being deprived of a means to enhance their own development using the very thing they can best produce against them while professing to aid them. With an additional resource of localized fuels created from the one resource they do have in abundance these nations can actually develop. As I said, this is a truly messed up situation both domestically and internationally, but is what comes from thinking of the world as a global economy. The strong prey on the weak, especially when sanctioned by governments.

Just one question for you: would you propose that we impose a 1000% tariff on ALL imported goods, or would it be more effective simply on goods produced by large US corporations that are externalizing their costs by using cheap third world labor? And IF the US government were to implement a policy like this, how do you think the average US customer would react? I can guarentee it'd be a quick way for Obama to make himself unpopular.

All imported goods.
The real problem enacting this is that it cannot be done wholesale immediately. There is no existing infrastructure to accomplish it without building new production plants first. This problem is one that would take decades to fully implement and the longer the wait to begin the worse things are going to get.

As for Obama's unpopularity, I suspect that would be with corporations rather than an unemployed workforce looking for jobs.
He is right in that there does need to be a change. Capitalism works, but I don't think what the world considers Capitalism and what true Capitalism is are in agreement.

I would give an analogy that is comparable.
Self-styled hippie environmentalists advocate the preservation of Old Growth forests without understanding that by doing so they are creating the absolute sure potential for devastation. Nature renews itself for a reason. One fire and that old growth forest goes up like flash-paper. The corporate world is attempting to preserve the old growth forest of its known economic models. Well... a world-wide fire has started and the tree-huggers are desperately attempting to put out the blaze using taxpayer fire-hoses while chanting kumbayas with their tin-cups held out to government praying for alms.

You have to cut down old growth and replant with new. Real environmentalists understand this.
My suggestion: let the hippies burn.

 

[randiann]

The Dust Bowl argument is fallacious. Certainly applicable 70 years ago before technological revolutions in farming methods.
...... America (and the world) suffer from restrictions imposed such as higher costs, prevention of developing alternative bio-fuels and full development of existing technologies.

So then overfarming doesn't cause soil erosion, overuse of fertilizers doesn't cause soil salinization, and overfarming also doesn't deplete the nutrients found in soil? Hmm....I think even though you pose some valid conspiracy-theory related reasons, this may also be a reason.

The amusing thing is that by preventing the development of bio-fuels these same third world countries are being deprived of a means to enhance their own development using the very thing they can best produce against them while professing to aid them. With an additional resource of localized fuels created from the one resource they do have in abundance these nations can actually develop.

Please, PLEASE do not support bio-fuels. Most of these "solutions" such as ethanol from switchgrass and corn are only short term solutions that are going to exasperate our problems. Look at the Ogalala aquifer in the Oklahoma panhandle/Kansas/Nebraska area. It's being depleted far more quickly than rainfall can refill it. It's levels are dropping by several feet a year, and it is only a matter of time before we won't have that resource available for irrigation water. And people are proposing to plant switchgrass, a VERY water intensive crop, in that region and irrigate it with *suprise* water from the Ogalala aquifer. Because that's a long term solution.

The problem with biofuels is that they are so water intensive. They offer a short term solution, but it's only a matter of time before we are scrambling to replace that technology with something else. Instead we should be focusing our energies on truly renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power.

As for Obama's unpopularity, I suspect that would be with corporations rather than an unemployed workforce looking for jobs.

Again, where are you going to find Americans who are willing to perform that type of drudgerous work (such as agricultural and manufacturing jobs provide) for that little pay? South of the border maybe?

The truth is, there are 4 different tiers of jobs (and I wish I had my notes from last year about this so I could provide you with more detail). There are
1: Agricultural, such as farmers
2: Manufacturing and physical labor jobs
3: Service industries (sales clerks, nurses, etc.)
4: Something to do with professional degrees and paper pushers (see why I wish I had my notes?)

Americans, and the industrialized world as a whole) are moving towards tier 3 and 4 jobs over tier 1 and 2 jobs. As our country becomes more "progressed", fewer and fewer people stay on the farm. Instead, we get a population disporia and an immigration into cities and away from rural areas. Even as the total US population is growing, rural areas in the mid-west and plains region are falling fast. Young people are seeking degrees and moving away from agriculture and into the cities seeking desk jobs. And you propose that they will willingly move back onto the farms and into manufacturing plants why? If you look at the direction America is moving in, there is no way you can explain people wanting to regress, at least not that I can see.

Capitalism works, but I don't think what the world considers Capitalism and what true Capitalism is are in agreement.

Agreed. Although no government has a truly Capitalistic lassiez-faire model. Just like no government has a truly socialistic form of government. We are all on a spectrum ranging between the two.

The strong prey on the weak, especially when sanctioned by governments.

Again, agreed.

You have to cut down old growth and replant with new....My suggestion: let the hippies burn.

That's real nice. Let's stomp on everyone else and just save ourselves. Screw the world, right?

You have to cooperate in order to prosper. This is why China's government was essentially failing-they cut themselves totally off from the rest of the world and relied on their government to regulate everything (Yes I know America is not China). China began to prosper when they opened themselves up to the global market and used it to their own benefit. They also shifted down the spectrum towards more of a capitalistic government (who is still essentially socialist, but now somewhat allows privitization of their businesses). This is why they have made so many advancements over the past 10-30 years especially. They used the global market to their advantage instead of keeping themselves secluded from the rest of the world.